The current page is not translated to the selected language.
Flight traffic was seriously disrupted at Brussels Airport in August 2008 due to a two-day strike staged by baggage handlers. Although an agreement was reached between management and trade unions at one of the handling companies, other baggage handlers rejected the proposals. The conflict has once again fuelled a debate between right and left-wing political parties on the need for more stringent regulation of the right to strike in public transport services.
On 11 August 2008, baggage handlers held an unplanned strike at Brussels Airport, lasting two days. The baggage handlers of Flightcare and Aviapartner, two leading handling companies, were protesting against mounting work pressure.
The strike action resulted in widespread chaos at the airport over the two days. Scores of arriving and departing flights were cancelled, diverted or delayed, as the airport effectively came to a standstill due to the strike. Thousands of travellers and their baggage were left stranded, and it took several days after the strike before the backlog of luggage could be processed.
The strike ended after management and trade unions of Aviapartner reached an agreement in which they promised to recruit more personnel in an effort to combat the increasing work pressure. For instance, a range of part-time workers will receive a full-time employment contract. New part-time workers are to be hired to help deal with the growing number of flights. A small seniority wage premium for those working longer than three years for the company is also to be introduced. In a referendum, the workers agreed with the management proposals and ended the strike.
At Flightcare, the contracts of 32 part-time workers were to be extended until the end of September 2008. Four new supervisors were also due to be appointed. Moreover, it was proposed that 30 part-time workers would receive a full-time employment contract to help maintain the current level of activity at the airport. A wage bonus of €150 was recommended for those working more than six years for the company. However, unlike the Aviapartner workers, the personnel at Flightcare rejected the agreement proposal, with 58% voting against it. Nevertheless, the two-thirds majority that would be necessary to prolong the strike action was not obtained. As a result, the social climate remained tense at the company, while plans were already underway for renewed industrial action at the beginning of October.
The industrial action once again triggered a debate on workers’ right to strike and on guaranteeing minimal services in key network industries like air transport.
The Organisation for Independent Entrepreneurs (Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers, UNIZO) was particularly vociferous in its criticisms. It stated that a strike should only be recognised as legal when a range of well-established procedures were followed in relation to the strike announcement – including timely communication and restrictions on using strike action as the ultimate measure after negotiations have failed. Furthermore, it urged the other social partners to reach agreement on ways to ensure that essential services like airport transport cannot be completely blocked by industrial action. The call for the statutory regulation of minimal services at airports in the event of a strike was also supported by the political economic right. The French-speaking liberal Reform Party (Mouvement Réformateur, MR) – part of the current government – issued a statement in which it renewed its demand for the establishment of a minimal service system in the transport sector in case of a strike.
In response, the Secretary of State responsible for mobility and transport issues, Etienne Schouppe, indicated that he hoped to increase competition between more baggage handling companies at the airport. Mr Schouppe concluded that by eliminating the monopoly of the current two handling companies at the airport, this would help to reduce the possible impact of a strike in one of the companies.
In a previous intersectoral agreement, the national social partners had already promised to evaluate and, if necessary, change the so-called ‘gentlemen’s agreement of 2002’ (BE0204301N), concerning the handling and timing of industrial conflicts. Due to recurrent strike activity in the country’s public transport sector, this scheduled evaluation is set to become more focused on the issue of minimal services in the event of strike action (BE0709039I, BE0705019I).
Guy Van Gyes, Higher Institute for Labour Studies (HIVA), Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)